Attorney General Jeff Sessions addresses the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies at their 2018 Spring Conference May 7, 2018, at the Scottsdale Resort at McCormick Ranch.(Photo: Tom Tingle/The Republic)

The union representing more than 350 immigration judges is challenging what it describes as the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Jeff Sessions' interference with their ability to make independent decisions in court.

The National Association of Immigration Judges filed a grievance Wednesday on behalf of a Philadelphia-based judge who accuses the DOJ of violating their collective bargaining agreement.

Sessions removed Judge Steven A. Morley from nearly 90 immigration cases, including a high-profile case involving a Guatemalan teen, in order to get a different outcome, the association alleges.

“By interfering with this process and removing the cases before Judge Morley, the agency's action violated the independence of the judge's decision-making authority, and undermined the integrity of the immigration court.”

Judge Ashley Tabbador, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges

"By interfering with this process and removing the cases before Judge Morley, the agency's action violated the independence of the judge's decision-making authority, and undermined the integrity of the immigration court," said Judge Ashley Tabbador, president of the immigration judges association.

"We as judges, who are bound to the oath of office, cannot let this action proceed unchallenged," she added.

The judges seek acknowledgement in writing from DOJ officials that they were wrong to interfere in Morley's case, that they'll return some of the cases removed from his docket, and a commitment to not interfere again.

The Department of Justice's Executive Office of Immigration Review, which is responsible for adjudicating immigration cases, said through a spokesperson that they have reason to believe Morley committed "potential violations of processes and practices," but did not provide detail.

"In any situation where a concern is raised about an immigration judge’s conduct, regardless of whether that concern is raised by a representative, third-party group, or following an internal review, EOIR’s OCIJ (Office of the Chief Immigration Judge) investigates the issue thoroughly and will address it appropriately as the facts warrant," the spokesperson said. "We look forward to fully vindicating the issues surrounding this matter.”

Case of Reynaldo Castro-Tum

The accusation of judicial interference stems from the case of Reynaldo Castro-Tum, a Guatemalan teen who entered the U.S. illegally in 2014 and failed to appear at two court hearings.

Earlier this year, Morley ordered Castro-Tum's case be closed administratively, essentially removing it from his calendar, because the mailing address provided by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which cares for unaccompanied minors, was not "reliable."

Attorneys from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security appealed, and at the same time, Sessions referred the teen's case to himself, eventually ruling in May that immigration judges do not have authority to administratively close cases. That leaves them with the option to either terminate the proceedings or order the person be deported in absentia.

According to the grievance, the leadership at the EOIR notified Morley in July that they had removed him from the case because he had been expected to order Castro-Tum removed in absentia in a May 31 hearing, instead allowing attorneys to continue looking for the teen.

He also learned that 26 other cases with similar address issues, and 60 cases that he had administratively closed but DHS asked to be reviewed again, were also reassigned to another judge. That judge ordered Castro-Tum be removed in absentia.

The NAIJ said "the reassignment was punitive and without legal foundation."

CLOSE

Arizona Republic reporters explain the difference between seeking asylum at the border and attempting to immigrate illegally.
Carly Henry, The Republic | azcentral.com

'Willing to step up'

Tabbador, the NAIJ president, said the group doesn't typically publicize grievances, but they felt compelled to act in this case because of "egregious violations of decisional independence."

Morley was disturbed by his removal from these cases, she said.

"Going public is going to have possible risks and we're certainly concerned that there may be risks involved, and things may happen in retaliation," Tabbador said. "But he just felt so committed to his oath of office and he felt so enraged at what was being done completely without basis that he said that he's willing to step up."

The Department of Justice has 60 days to respond to the grievance, according to NAIJ. Because they are not part of the independent judiciary, immigration judges must follow labor laws that apply to other federal government employees.

The NAIJ has also filed a grievance for the quotas that Sessions wants to impose on immigration judges to tackle the more than 730,000 case backlog. Tabbador said their work has been increasingly politicized to the point that it "basically turn us into law enforcement officers en rogue."

"This decision to interfere with Judge Morley's handling of the case is further example of what we have seen as a step-by-step-by-step encroachment of the authority and ability to handle cases independent of the Department of Justice," she said.